It's not quite the Hells Angels at Altamont, but another biker group is being accused of piling on, this time by ethanol advocates.

Members of the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to lobby against the legalization of selling a 15-percent ethanol-gasoline blend (i.e. E15). Their main message is to call for " independent testing of the E15 ethanol fuel blend in motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle engines before it is allowed for sale at retail gas stations." Currently, about 30 gas stations across the US provide E15.

Because of their anti-E15 stance, the AMA has been taken to task by advocate Fuels America, Ethanol Producerreports. Fuels America called the AMA's actions an "absurdity" because the group was protesting the use of a fuel that can't be used by motorcycles in the first place. Motorcycles have been filling up with the typical 10 percent ethanol blend, and the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) has said no motorcycle mechanical problems have stemmed from the use of the biofuel blend.

The RFA is among groups that have been taking on entities such as the American Petroleum Institute, which has argued that E15 may damage engines because of its higher alcohol content. Last June, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started allowing public sales of E15 in a move that has since been bashed by AAA and the state of Maine. You can see a video of the AMA's events below.

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

Anonymous

1 Year Ago

As an AMA member myself, I am a bit angry that the AMA is lobbying in this way when they should be focusing their efforts on educating their own members on how to select a pump. I do not appreciate the implication that motorcyclists are too dumb to figure out how to read labels before pumping fuel into their bikes. You don't see anyone talking about banning diesel because some fool might pump it into his gasoline vehicle, or vice-versa. I would rather see more of my AMA donations going toward more important issues, such as safety.

Anonymous

There is a growing resistance to the mandatory requirement of US corn based Ethanol blended with US gasoline. This resistance is not just as you might expect, from oil companies, but consumers, environmentalists, economists, international organisations concern with world hunger, auto-makers, scientists, taxpayers, in fact from everyone ! (except those involved in profiting from the ethanol industry). The ethanol industry, and the RFA, is becoming more aggressive in it's lobbying for the government to remove right of the US consumer to decide the fuel of their choice. This is a desperate industry, which knows that despite hundreds of billions dollars in taxpayer and private funding, and nearly forty years of existence, can't survive without a government mandate and government assistance, forcing unwilling consumers to buy it's inferior product ! There comes a time when enough, is enough ! State after State are courageously telling the RFA , Big Agriculture and the farm lobby, that the taxpayer supported party is over ! These states are repealing the ethanol mandate, but it's time the US Congress listened to the call from the American people and the rest of world, and ended the mandate for ethanol ! No one is stopping the US producing ethanol, just end the mandate and government assistance. If the US consumers flock to buy ethanol, it's their choice, if US consumers reject the product, that's their right as free US citizens.

I don't know what you've seen so far, but so far what I've seen is that those opposed to ethanol tend to be against it in ALL forms, regardless of source, cost, impact, etc. They also tend to be rather ignorant of the stated reasons ethanol is used, and in many cases are even unaware of what it is. They're just against it 'because they heard it was bad for their engine'. Now, I've said this before: corn is about the dumbest way to get ethanol I've ever seen in terms of how much work has to be done per gallon, but even the worst credible estimates I've seen show it's profitable from an energy standpoint, and generates less pollution than the manufacture of gasoline/diesel fuel. Of the articles I've read, and research I've done (and I freely admit I haven't dug as deeply as I could), I haven't been able to find evidence that corn ethanol manufacture per se actually and truly causes starvation. It seems more likely that the food produced (which is far more than what is needed to feed every man, woman, and child on the planet today) is simply mismanaged, held back, or thrown away. Wasting food is orthogonal to corn ethanol. I say again, using corn of all things to make ethanol is stupidly inefficient, but it's not to blame for world hunger. In fact, the "waste" from making ethanol is extremely high-quality feed for cattle, chicken, etc., so one could argue that ethanol production is directly responsible for a higher quality of meat in the marketplace than what would otherwise be available. Now I'm not even going to start in on the proven research on ethanol and air quality. That horse is dead. If people want smog, oh well. Dumb, but I can see why someone might want smog. But why be against something if you don't actually know why it's in your fuel to begin with? Which brings me back to my first point. A lot of opposers seem to be of the opinion E15 is mandated. Who gave them that idea? Doesn't make sense at all. Most places, you couldn't buy it even if you were rich, because it doesn't exist in most places. Just goes to show the whole system is messed up. Corrupt people trying to force stuff on other people, corrupt people trying to ban stuff, corrupt people lying to other people about what they want banned, and the uninformed people who have been lied to trying to make the rules for other people based on misinformation. Meanwhile, corrupt people on both sides of the aisle just making money from the other corrupt people polluting the air. I think pretty much everyone is missing the point of all this.

You must not be paying attention to the opposition if you think it's only against US-centric corn ethanol. Shoot, just read the comments here, even. The majority of vocal opponents are against all ethanol in any fuel whatsoever, and it's plain to see they're not against it for ANY of the reasons you cite, although some of the smarter ones might use one or two as excuses for their irrational fear. I'm not going to say even one thing for or against any mandate or non-mandate for it, but you appear to be somewhat short-sighted in your view of the issue as well. I base this conclusion on your willingness to call down evil on ethanol as environmentally harmful, when not only is it proven to clean up emissions in ordinary cars, but in fact oil products themselves are far more environmentally harmful. Let's take another example: emissions controls and safety equipment. There is nothing "economic" or "environmentally friendly" about mandating expensive, energy-intensive manufacture and installation of seat belts, air bags, or catalytic converters, or even crash-test standards, all of which add cost and pollution in their manufacture, and which weigh down and complicate cars. By your logic, everyone should just end the mandate for safety equipment and emissions controls, and let "the market" sort it out like it did with derivatives, or like it's doing over in Europe right now. Not that government regulation would do any better, mind you. I reiterate that the ENTIRE system is messed up. I won't agree or disagree with that kind of logic, but you certainly don't seem to see the consequences of your own argument. You seem to want to be balanced in your viewpoint on most topics--or at least you seem to give that appearance--but face it, ethanol is just not a black/white issue. There are good things and bad things about it and you seem to be ignoring the parts of the issue that don't jibe with your opinion.

@ omni007 Thank you for your reply. You are correct when you say that the opposition is not just focused on E15, nor even ethanol per se. The real opposition is against a US corn based ethanol industry, which requires a compulsory mandate and continuing support from US taxpayers and consumers for, inefficient, uneconomic and environmentally harmful industry to survive. End the mandate (and taxpayer assistance, and the argument stops ! Does US ethanol production harm the poor ? Yes ! http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/children-of-the-corn/3992 http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/01/how-us-eu-biofuel-policy-beggars-global-south http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570406/Are-biofuels-starving-the-worlds-poor.html Is US ethanol production environmentally harmful ? Yes ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BioethanolsCountryOfOrigin.jpg http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/william-tucker-bad-week-for-biofuels/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/gulf-of-mexico-s-extinction-by-ethanol.html Is the US ethanol industry economic ? No ! (Just remove the mandate, and the taxpayer assistance and find out ! ) There is an increasing number of scientific, and scholarly reports and articles, relating to the growing evidence of the negatives of US produced ethanol. Even at E10, this industry is badly, and incompetently regulated, why would anyone want E 15 ? E15, may not be currently compulsory, but the RFA is lobbying for more compulsory use of this product. Even at E10, US ethanol has been shown to be a disaster, why would you want to increase it's use to E 15 ? End the mandate, and let the US consumer decide !

omni007 if the government has it's way it will be mandated. E85 should be a homerun if ethanol is saving us money, yet only 4% of flex vehicle owners chose to use it. Could it possibly be because of it's poor performance with addition to the fact it cost over 20% more to use over gas? With E10 ethanol users have hit what they call the blenders wall. They want to increase ethanol usage and they can only get there by mandating E15. Everything Marco describes is dead on.

@Marco Reread my comments. What made this whole discussion about you? I'm talking about the average Joes (like in the article?). What are they generally opposed to, and what are their stated reasons? My previous comments covered that. Further, what have I already stated about corn ethanol? If you had read the content, instead of anticipating what you thought was my general opinion, you would have seen what I think of corn ethanol. And again, if you had actually read what you replied to, you would see I have no opinion whatever on mandate or non-mandate. I just think it's hypocritical, ignorant, short-sighted, and--on the part of some--just another side of the corrupt system to call for outright bans on it, when gasoline and oil products in general are already proven to be far more environmentally deleterious. Congratulations for proving my point about missing the point. @EVnerd You're doing better than a lot of folks at trying to see the big picture. I have a couple nitpicks, though: The timetable for food price spikes vs. ethanol mandate. You do realize ethanol has been in gasoline for decades, right? I think you'll find food prices track more closely with oil prices, and more specifically prices on transportation fuel and petroleum-derived fertilizers. The 10% or less ethanol additive that only goes into gasoline, but not the diesel and bunker fuel that goes into every semi and cargo supership on the planet is going to have less of an effect, even though a large portion of it comes from some of this country's ridiculously huge parture acreage. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. And you didn't even address the issue of food waste and mismanagement. It is estimated that farmers now produce sufficient food to feed 12 billion people. So what's the problem? The other nitpick I have is just a minor thing. It's true about the antibiotics, supplements, and hormone stuff. I've seen it, too. But unfortunately, those things are more of an issue when feeding animals the mutant Monsanto crap virtually raw. That kind of corn has way too much starch, and may not be properly washed of chemicals and stuff. Distiller's grain has been thoroughly sterilized, and the starch is all but gone, leaving mainly protein and minerals/vitamins. It's much healthier than what the poor things usually have to eat. Again, just a minor thing.

@ omni007 "What made this whole discussion about you ?", You did, when you wrote "you appear to be somewhat short-sighted in your view of the issue" ! I have provided you with extensive material, from reputable expert resources, substantiating my opposition to US corn based ethanol production, none of which you are able to refute. I don't think the lobbyists on either side are necessarily lying or corrupt, simply doing the best for the interests they serve. Remove the mandate, and take away the government RFI's and taxpayer funded grants, and then the lobbying will stop. A much smaller industry, based on stover, sugar cane (or other feedstock) will emerge. This new industry, serving consumer need, should be able to survive as a useful addition to the fuel dynamic, without massive taxpayer support or harmful environmental downsides. Interestingly, you touch on bunker oil (marine grade No 6 fuel) used in 99% of all shipping. This is the world single greatest cause of preventable pollution. If the US imposed an outright ban on all shipping 'rigged' for bunker oil usage from entering US ports, at one stroke, and no cost to the taxpayer, it would eliminate more toxic global pollution, and GW/CC emissions than the entire ethanol industry could achieve in 10,000 years ! Yet there is no action being taken on this issue at all. (Denmark's Maersk Line, and BP's marine advanced fuels project excepted).

"those opposed to ethanol tend to be against it in ALL forms" Not quite true. However, most of us see that it has had little benefit over the 35 years of subsidies totaling over $100 Billion dollar, and crammed down our throats by a 4th branch of government making laws and administering justice that has made ethanol mandates and penalties for its use/non-use; . Little benefit? Good as an oxygenate in the winter time. [replaced MTBE - read-up on that fiasco - even more stupid than ethanol (so far. . . .)]. Besides that; ethanol probably does more harm to the environment than good. Consider pollution from fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, run-off, diesel farm equipment, trucking to distilleries, and pollution from the sources of energy to power the distilleries and provide process heat (coal and natural gas). Nobody has really done a decent job of looking at the overall picture. Yikes get ready for the ethanol lobby morons to cite all kinds of pro-ethanol studies. Yeah $$$ ching ching ching. Left-overs good as cattle feed? Yeah, but you'll need to use antibiotics to keep the cattle from getting sick. (see the movie FOOD, INC --- on an empty stomach). Hasn't affected food prices??? Come-on: 1. Use common sense (laws of supply and demand). 2. Ask yo mamma about grocery prices. Yeah, we are against it. We're really getting sick of enviro-wackos (with little science knowledge, and poor math skills)cramming all kinds of stupidity down our throats. -- AlGore the journalism major; "the argument is over" while he flies around in private jets, and chauffeured in Cad-Escalade limos. -- raktm the motorscooter driver that is upset that his motorscooter doesn't have a catalytic converter (so get an electric scooter like 2WheelMenace). Sick of ALL subsidies. Sick of morons telling us "pass the bill to find out what's in it" (and the morons that passed it without reading it). E10 was stupid - so let's do E15. Yes, sick of morons.

@ omni007 Hmmm... I thought I had made myself clear, but evidently not. My entire focus is on 'US corn based ethanol.' I have no dispute with Ethanol production from sugar cane in Brazil for instance. If you had read table provided in the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BioethanolsCountryOfOrigin.jpg) you would understand that US corn ethanol can be 20% more pollutant that gasoline, while yielding only 65% the energy. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report states: Mean Damages in $/VMT (vehicle mile travelled) Gasoline :- $0.0134 E10 dry corn (10% ethanol/gasoline blend) $0.0135 E10 corn stover (cellulose) $0.0130 Mean Damages in $/gge (gallon of gasoline equivalent) Gasoline :- $0.2920 E10 dry corn (10% ethanol/gasoline blend) $0.2918 E10 corn stover (cellulose) $0.2810 Statistics like these make nonsense of your belief that US corn based ethanol is environmentally beneficial, when taken in it's entirety. The opposition concerns only the US corn based production of ethanol. Changing the context to include all ethanol, is just a distortion ! That's the sort of disinformation published by the RFA. The RFA claimed recently that US ethanol has become less pollutant. What they carefully omitted was the reason ! The reason was simple, due to the drought, but in accordance with federal law, the US was forced to import Brazilian Sugar Cane ethanol to make up the huge shortfall in local product. (so much for energy independence) this cost US consumers 13 billion dollars ! But since Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is far less environmentally harmful, it was used to fake the results ! [ http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54281] Auto-mobile manufacturers are mandated to include only those safety features that work. But, if after 40 years, and billions of dollars investment, a safety feature actually proved no only not to work, but actually contributed to harm, it would be quickly abolished ! " your willingness to call down evil on ethanol as environmentally harmful " That's not true ! Your problem is you are confusing ethanol in general, with US corn based ethanol production. As I have said many times, my opposition is reserved solely for the US corn based ethanol industry. The US does produce ethanol from other substances, including sugar cane.

"food price spikes vs. ethanol" You're absolutely right. Way too many variables to ever say ethanol has or has not had an affect on food prices. There's a pro-ethanol commenter here that swears up and down that it absolutely has not; quoting studies. Just goes to show, that a study can make a case for any BS the studier wants to make. Figures lie and liars figure. You'll have to admit though, that using common sense and the most basic laws of economics; that it has.

I don't want any ethanol at all in any of my vehicles. Its downsides are well documented. I'm amazed how the commenters below are so approving of ethanol. Its junk science, harmful to food prices worldwide, destroys our vehicles, and put out more harmful emissions. All of you need to quit listening to what special interest groups and the govt spews out at you. Most if not all of it is wrong and benefits only a certain group of fatcats who are already stinking rich but want to the govt to do their bidding for them. You all have drank the cool aid and it shows. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves buying 100% of what our corrupt govt says and repeating it on and on in comment sections like this. Like being neutered, you have lost your cohones.

Nope. Not our 1983 Crown Vic, not our 1987 Ford Ranger, not our 1993 Suburban, not our 1999 Suburban, not our 2000 Ranger, and neither of my Hondas. Most or all of those had plastic tanks, and not one melted because of ethanol. Come to think of it, I don't think the tanks gave us any trouble at all. I only had to fool with a fuel tank twice, and it was always from something else.

Here to lie about your MPG again, eh? IF you are getting 20% less MPG on E10, you have something wrong with your car. Because just the 90% of the E10 that is gasoline would give you 90% of the MPG alone, without even considering the ethanol. So either you have something horribly wrong with your car, or you are lying.

@ PR/raktmn "lying" ? Why so gratuitously offensive ? 'Diffrunt', claims gasoline '' doesn't clog up my outboard " . You tell him he's lying about his MPG in a car he never mentioned ! You know nothing about his outboard (or his car), and couldn't possibly judge the contrasting effect of different fuel blends, what on earth gives you the right to call him a liar ? You also claim to be a motorcyclist, whose main concern is with the health or environmental benefits of 10% ethanol for motorcycles. I have no idea what sort of motorcycle your ride, but I would have thought that if you were so sincere about the effects of motor-cycle pollution, why haven't you traded your gas powered motorcycle in for an EV motorcycle ? Before you start moralising and sanctimoniously informing others, that they "don't give a damn if children and the elderly suffer health problems, and cause pollution so bad that it becomes a health hazard to others", it might be a good idea to start with yourself ! ( Buy a two-wheel EV ! ).

Imagine the whining if we were ever to require motorcycles to have emissions controls. They drive around on these noisy stink-mobiles and pretend like they are free, that's great, but the rest of us are ******* the unburned hydrocarbons from their tailpipes.

To be clear, there have been 3 different sets of emissions rules for motorcycles in the US. The first went into effect in 1978, and went through 2005. Then another set of standards were put into effect in two stages in 2006 and 2010. The first stage impacted all motorcycles starting in 2006, based on engine size. Then in 2010, a much stricter set of emissions rules were put into place for motorcycles that were 280 CC or larger. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/light-duty/motorcycles.htm So things are getting better, especially in 2010 and newer motorcycles.

Mandatory insurance: yes Helmet laws: terrible idea. We have held onto very few ways to kill off idiots in modern society. Letting them die because they are too stupid to wear a helmet is a great idea. Decibel limits: none of your business, or the states. Daytime running lights: ditto Mirror laws: ditto Please go back to commiefornia sir. Leave the rest of us alone.

lord.phag- Sounds like you've hit your head wrecking without wearing a helmet way too many times already. It's my business when you or your buddy's ignorance in not wearing a helmet raises all of our insurance rates, because a simple accident that should have caused no injury suddenly becomes a multi-million dollar brain damage healthcare nightmare because you or your buddies refused to wear a helmet. Do you have millions set aside to pay for your brain damage due to your choice of riding without a helmet? Do your non-helmet wearing buddies? I didn't think so. It sounds like you are a full deck of childish narcissism, where you don't think you have any responsibility for your emissions/pollution, or to the costs of your choice not to wear a helmet, or your noise, or your visibility on the road, or even any need to know where other drivers are around you by using mirrors. Take your childish narcissism somewhere else.

To be 100% clear, the AMA also fought every single inch of the way against these higher EPA standards, and are still opposing all efforts to enforce these regulations. They have also came out in the past against mandatory motorcycle insurance, helmet laws, decibel sound limits, mandatory daytime headlights, mirror requirements, etc. They want Mad Max style zero rules.

lord phag- What part of "you or your buddies" three times in my post don't you understand? Since you post like a total idiot, QED. You clearly don't give a damn about green anything, given your attitude that 5,000 miles a year (50,000 miles a decade) in your "Gross Polluter" doesn't matter. So why don't you just go back to your buddies over at AB and stay off of a green car site where you clearly don't give a damn about green cars. You are like a Chevy Truck fanboi trolling a Ford truck website. Your Gross Polluter you are so proud of likey puts out as much pollution over 5000 miles as a dozen typical 2013 cars do in a year. And more than dozens of green cars emit in a year. But you are a Socialist, who believes that everyone else should have to pay to offset the crap coming out of your gross polluter. You want to privatize your driving enjoyment, while socializing the cost of your pollution. The problem is that all your buddies think they are special too. Do you realize that you and your buddies who also drive gross polluters (about 10% of all cars on the road) cause HALF of all pollution from cars? What makes you think you are so special that you and your buddies should be allowed to cause half of all pollution, and then pretend like you have zero personal responsibility? Meanwhile all the rest of us have to pay extra to buy cars that are cleaner just to make up for you and your buddies lack of personal responsiblity. Every single thing you talk about is yet another example of dodging personal responsibility, and being a socialist who thinks everyone else should subsidize your poor choices. Do you know who else thinks like that? Grade school children. Now go run off an play with your little buddies, run along now.

What makes you think I don't wear a helmet? I essentially said only a total idiot wouldn't. Can you even read bro? :P Now, concerning the rest. My daily driver is almost brand new with full emissions equipment, no loud exhaust, no alterations to visibility or anything else. In fact it is bone stock. Now my weekend car had about everything you don't like. However, it gets driven less than 5000 miles a year and its effect on pollution and noise pollution is negligible. So I'll say it again. It is none of your business what I do with my car. If this was on the regular blog instead of ABG, your downvotes would be off the charts for advocating this nanny state crap. You did say you don't advocate any type of fuel being unavailable and that I can to tally agree with. That's all. Goodnight sir.

No. Personal responsibility is me spending 25 large on a car that gets 50 miles/gallon so my "gross polluter" isn't what I drive every day. I would throw a guess that whatever you drive isn't that clean. I even checked my "gross polluter" for you. Less than 600 miles driven this year. Still has high flow cats too. Apparently the average fuel mileage for a car sold was 24.6 in March 2013. Mine is 5 under that at the very most, and I'm being very conservative. So I'll say it again. My weekend toy doesn't matter. You call me a socialist, I call you a fascist. This is where you green nazis go way overboard and the reason you will never win a major election. You are completely unreasonable. You think you can tell everybody what to do. You don't pick your battles either and frankly, you have much bigger fish to fry than me. Within reason, I should be allowed to have a fun car as a hobby. Why? Because this is America. If you don't like it, get the f*** out.

Btw the MythBusters agree with me. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html The Air Resources Board estimates there are 600,000 motorcycles in active use in California, which account for less than 1% of vehicle miles traveled in the state. Those 600,000 motorcycles, however, account for 13% of the state's hydrocarbon emissions from passenger vehicles, Swanton said.

The EPA, the European Union, and California CARB all agree with you too. There have been a number of motorcycle emissions rules added over the last decade or so. Which is why there are a lot of motorcycles that have catalytic converters now. They aren't mandatory on all motorcycles, just those motorcycles that can't produce clean enough exhaust without one. Basically they all have to meet the same standards, and if a bike can meet that standards without a cat, that is allowed. If it requires a cat to meet the standards, then a cat is required.